On 07/02/2014 10:58 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:35:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm also not sure how to designate these machines. The buildfarm server
>>>> metadata isn't designed for auto-updating build platforms. But no doubt if
>>>> necessary we can come up with something.
>>
>>> Off-hand, it seems like we could give it a try, and abandon the effort
>>> if it proves too problematic.
>>
>> If a majority of buildfarm critters were like that, it'd be too confusing.
>> But as long as they are few, not all following the same update stream,
>> and well labeled in the buildfarm status page, I think we could cope.
>
> +1. The buildfarm has one such member already, anchovy, and I recall it
> having given at least one helpful forewarning. It shows as "Arch Linux
> testing [updated daily]", which is sufficient annotation for me. Its failure
> rate has been low; member-caused failures due to ENOSPC and other miscellany
> are a good deal more common.
Yep - I see early notice of new gcc "special" behaviour, etc as quite
valuable.
If we're dubious about a result, we wait a few days and see if it goes
away on its own.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
